My point was that you cannot stop an action in the middle to determine triggering effects for other actions. The AR card adds to the dial reveal, and evidence by the phrase "when you reveal..." You apparently agree that you must consider any modifying effects when determining if triggering events have occured, except in this case. That seems odd.

Not to mention, that in this case we only have one effect that changes the color of a maneuver, so your point about two is meaningless. Yet for some reason you want to ignore that effect and proceed on. That is the proble we are having with your interpretation.

FFS, I don't know how to make this any more clear to you without drawing a diagram with some Crayola crayons.

No, you're wrong. Nothing has to be "stopped" for a trigger to occur. Adrenaline Rush =/= Gunner. They are not the same, so my logic does not apply to only one instance.

No, that's exactly what you said back on page 3:

"Lawl, WHAT?!? The dial is red... but it isn't red. Listen to yourself.

Here's exactly what the card says: "When you reveal a red maneuver..." OK, that's where you stop. The maneuver is already red. That's all the rule on page 17 needs to trigger. What you treat the maneuver as afterwards no longer matters. You can treat it as being fuchsia if you want, you still revealed a red maneuver."

You are stopping after the dial reveal, and ignoring the part where that dial is modified. I challenge you to find anywhere else in the rules where an effect is triggered without considering any other actions which might modify those conditions. I also challenge you to find an example of the word "when" that does not mean "at the same time as something else" I won't be holding my breath.

I'm not arguing with you anymore. You shot what ever credibility you might have had (and that's a big "might") right in the foot when you tried to convince me that a ship is considered "hit" before your opponent even rolls his defense dice. You can't even get the simple rules right, I fear there's no hope in you comprehending what I'm telling you.

Well, since I didn't say that was how it worked, but rather used it as an example of what you were trying to do in this situation, your credibility in the reading comprehension department seems to be lacking. I never said that was how it worked, in fact, I repeatedly said that was not how it worked. Whatever you need to do to justify yourself, I guess.

I agree with you that the Gunner example is bad, and I've explained to you TWICE how that has absolutely nothing to do with Adrenaline Rush. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? You seem pretty well acquainted with the execution, if not the concept.

Look, you want to prove that I'm wrong? The rules regarding whether or not a ship is hit are on page 12. Read the "Modify Defense Dice" step, and then show me where the rules describe an analogous step between "Reveal Dial" and "Set Template" on page 7. I'd like to see you quote that rule for me, since it doesn't exist.

Once again, its an analogy to illustrate a point. I am not, nor have I ever said, that this is the way it works. On the contrary, doing it the way I described is completely wrong. It is, however, analogous to what you are doing with the reveal dial step. (Analagous means similar to, not identical to. Someone who understands English so well should have known that.) I'll break it down so you can understand, since you quite obviously haven't yet (as evidfence by your insistence that this is how I think it works).

When making an attack, you first roll the dice. That, in my analogy, equates to revealing the dial.

Now, in an attack, the dice can be modified. In my analogy, that equates to playing the Adrenaline Rush card. It modifies the dial, just like focus tokens modify the attack dice.

The point of my analogy is that in an attack, you cannot stop the procedure after the dice roll to declare that triggering conditions for Gunner have been met. That was all. I was not saying that you could, so your accusations that I did are flat wrong. Similarly, I don't see why you can stop the reveal procedure (which includes playing the Adrenaline Rush card as evidence by the phrase "when you reveal") to declare that the triggering conditions for the page 17 rule have been met.

Most people seem to have understood my analogy quite well. Sorry you had such a hard time with it.

Now, how about an example where you can declare triggering conditions are met before all modifications to those conditions have been met? Or an example in the rules where the word "when" does not mean "at the same time as"? Or are you just going to continue to insist you are right and you know better than anyone else? I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong, but it takes more than misunderstanding what I'm actually saying and accusing me of saying something else to prove it to me.

I actually drew you a diagram to illustrate how very, very bad your own example is. Please answer the question I posed above it if you feel like elucidating yourself, otherwise you have nothing else to say to me.

Now, A) or B). Which is it? (bonus points for the correct definition of "straw man argument")

You still don't get it.

What I have been saying all along is that the reveal dial step and the playing of Adrenaline Rush are not seperate steps at all. They happen at the same time. That's what "When you reveal... you may discard this card..." means. It doesn't say "After you reveal... you may discard..." which is what your example B says. That is not my position, and never has been so your claims about my erecting a strawman is itself a strawman. That's why the analogy works, because you are claiming this step works differently than the attack procedure. You are stopping the process (your words, by the way) to claim the triggering conditions have been met before those conditions get modified. That's my point, which you don't seem to be disputing.

I also notice you haven't shown any examples of stopping a procedure to claim triggering conditions are met before all modifications to those conditions are complete, nor any examples from the rules of the word "when" meaning anything other than something happening at the same time. You said this is so obvious, so surely you can find some supporting example, right?

A) or B)? Please answer the question. It's pretty simple.

I also notice you haven't shown any examples of stopping a procedure to claim triggering conditions are met before all modifications to those conditions are complete, nor any examples from the rules of the word "when" meaning anything other than something happening at the same time. You said this is so obvious, so surely you can find some supporting example, right?

I've asked him multiple times for this. All he needs to do is give a reference that states that timing works his way... Still waiting...Or an example where something is dealt with in the way he suggests.... Still yet to see it.

He just keeps yelling at me and telling me I'm stupid.

.....

The other side of the argument seems able to at least gives some examples that are semi analogous.

.....

I showed this to a friend of mine which is a long term gamer and has played a fair amount of Magic, and he went "Yeah I've seen this all the time with Magic players playing other games, they get so used to one way of dealing with timing they can't understand anything else".

A is in the rules, B is something you made up. I certainly never said anything like it, that was your misunderstanding. Or a strawman. Your choice, I suppose.

Now how about answering my challenges?

No, B is something YOU made up. See my previous explanation, and maybe try finding that place on page 7 that I asked for.

And frankly, I have no idea what you're asking for. I can't give you an example of a "timing stop for a trigger" because there is none. The trigger occurs seamlessly as part of the game.

Assuming you have no stress tokens it allows you to perform a red maneuver (treated as white) without gaining stress and you get your action(s) as normal. Everyone agree with that?

If you have a stress token.

1) Doesn't allow you to perform a red maneuver (treated as a white one) if you're already stressed and opponent chooses any white maneuver he wants on that ships dial and you still get no action(s).

2) Turns the red maneuver into a white one as if it was coloured white on the maneuver dial from factory. And you still carry a stress token and can't do any action(s).

So either one of those for a 1 point upgrade card that is one use only and discarded.

Page 13 of core rulebook. Resolving rule disputes.

One player takes three attack dice and the other takes 3 defense dice.

Both players roll and the one with the most focus results has the dispute won in their favour for the remainder of that game.

Until of course the FAQ comes out and fixes the issue(s) in which case the dispute would of been officially resolved by the designers of the game.

There is no need to argue cause arguments are fixed with dice rolls.

FFG thought of everything.

No, I never said playing the card was a seperate step. My position from the start was that it is played at the same time as the dial reveal. You are the one who made up the seperate step because you insisted it couldn't be simultaneous. My position is that the card is played at the same time as the dial being revealed, so there is no point during Step 1 of the Activation Phase or after where the dial is considered to be red, thus no point where the opponent can change the maneuver.

Now, I could be wrong, and the card being played and the opponent choosing another action are considered simultaneous, in which case the player gets to choose which one happens first and the opponent will still not get to choose another maneuver.

I don't see any way your interpretation, where the opponent choosing a new maneuver happens independently of everything else, could be correct because there is no other action in the game where something is triggered before all modifications are carried out. You have certainly not supported that assertion with anything other than bluster.

You said that the two are analogous. One has an intervening step, the other does not. Your analogy is invalid. Get it?

You said that the two are analogous. One has an intervening step, the other does not. Your analogy is invalid. Get it?

Even then it is more in the way of evidence than you have given. Can we please have a ruling that even suggests it works the way you say?

They are analogous because in both cases, the initial conditions are modified. In one case, you allow the modifications to take place before considering whether triggering conditions are met, and in the other you don't.

So why don't you allow the modifications to take place when it comes to the dial reveal?

No. A thousand times, no. In example A), the initial condition is being modified during a specific step that is identified by the rules for that exact purpose. In example B), there is no equivalent modification step. Read page 7 again. It goes straight from "Reveal Dial" to "Set Template."

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Yet the card quite clearly states that the maneuver on the dial is being modified, and since the card says "when you reveal" and there is no defined modification step, then the modification must take place at the same time as the dial is revealed.

Which is what i have been saying all along.

So when you YOU think the maneuver gets modified?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

I'm not committing logical fallacies, the strawmen you are erecting about what I'm saying are. Not quite the same thing.

Apples and oranges, you might say.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

We are not playing Magic the Gathering.. I believe that Magic the Gathering is played with cards and this game seems to have a pletheora of little model space planes of some kind.

Would it be unreasonable to expect an example from the game we are playing?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

We are not playing Magic the Gathering.. I believe that Magic the Gathering is played with cards and this game seems to have a pletheora of little model space planes of some kind.

Would it be unreasonable to expect an example from the game we are playing?

Apparently it is unreasonable, since if there was already an analogous experience in this game there would be no point of contention here. And for the record, I also compared the use of language in MtG to demonstrate how the word "when" implies an effect after the fact.

There is an analogous example in X-wing. You just don't think it applies because there is no distinct modification step for this particular modification to take place. Which supports my point, but you haven't addressed that yet.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

I'm not committing logical fallacies, the strawmen you are erecting about what I'm saying are. Not quite the same thing.

Apples and oranges, you might say.

I once knew a kid in middle school who was so incapable of original thought that all he could do was repeat the same exact insults that were just used against him. We didn't consider him intelligent either.

Saying "no, YOU'RE using straw man fallacies" doesn't make it any less false. Banality and wishful thinking make for a piss poor combination.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

We are not playing Magic the Gathering.. I believe that Magic the Gathering is played with cards and this game seems to have a pletheora of little model space planes of some kind.

Would it be unreasonable to expect an example from the game we are playing?

Apparently it is unreasonable, since if there was already an analogous experience in this game there would be no point of contention here. And for the record, I also compared the use of language in MtG to demonstrate how the word "when" implies an effect after the fact.

But if all your examples are from an entirely different game, which doesn't use the same timing as an aweful lot of games on the market (especially other Fantasy Flight games, which I do think is relevant here). How can you be so certain your right? Especially as you have said this game has no analogous examples. Which I feel is definitely the case for your reading of the timing of this game, I also can't find a single analogous example that matches the way you believe it works. I assumed you had, hence your certainty that it worked your way. I guess that is not the case.

I felt that it was perfectly reasonable that the onus was on you as the person that was ascertaining that the rules definitely worked the way you believe they did to prove it, by at the very least showing somewhere in this game where they match your reading of the rules. Was this unreasonable?

I wasn't the one that was saying that he was absolutely certain he was right.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Whereas you seem to be comparing apples to nothing. Would it be too much to ask for you to give and Analogous Example for your view on the timing?

You mean besides the handful of MtG examples I cited? Sorry, comparing apples to oranges isn't inherently superior to comparing them to nothing. Gullwind is committing logical fallacies, whereas I am not.

I'm not committing logical fallacies, the strawmen you are erecting about what I'm saying are. Not quite the same thing.

Apples and oranges, you might say.

I once knew a kid in middle school who was so incapable of original thought that all he could do was repeat the same exact insults that were just used against him. We didn't consider him intelligent either.

Saying "no, YOU'RE using straw man fallacies" doesn't make it any less false. Banality and wishful thinking make for a piss poor combination.

Well, since I never claimed what you said I did, what do you call it?

You either didn't read what I actually wrote, didn't understand what I actually wrote, or you are being dishonest about what I actually wrote. Those are the only three options I see. I'm perfectly willing to assume one of the first two.

Good lord. I have proven AMPLY why I am 100% correct over the past umpteen pages, using nothing more than the rules as they exist and a simple understanding of the English language. Do I need to cite you an analagous example in order for you to understand how to turn your wrist whilst holding the dial?

meine gott!

No, you've ASSERTED why you're right, using examples (by your own admission) from an entirely different game.

You have given no examples of any other actions that are triggered before all modifications to the triggering conditions are made.

You've given no examples from the X-Wing rules of any usage of the word "when" that does not mean a simultaneous action.

And yet you think you've proven your point?